Implementation of interventions to reduce preventable hospital admissions for cardiovascular or respiratory conditions: an evidence map and realist synthesis

Recognition of risk and prevention in safeguarding of children and young people: a mapping review and component analysis of service development interventions aimed at health and social care professionals

BACKGROUND

The term 'safeguarding' covers the protection of health, wellbeing and human rights. Effective safeguarding enables people (particularly children, young adults and other vulnerable people) to live free from fear of abuse, harm or neglect. The UK Children Act 2004 required key agencies, including health and social care providers, to consider the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare. Within a larger evidence synthesis project, we sought to identify and map service development interventions (excluding provision of training) aimed at improving awareness of safeguarding and identifying at-risk children and young people in health and social care settings.

METHODS

We searched fourteen health and social care databases from 2004 (date of Children Act) to October 2019 and updated the review via a citation search in March 2021. Studies of any design were eligible if they described or evaluated an intervention (other than training) aimed at health or social care professionals in the United Kingdom and designed to improve recognition of risk in the context of safeguarding children and young people. Studies with no intervention (e.g. qualitative studies) were included to explain why interventions work or fail to work. Included studies were summarised using narrative synthesis. Risk of bias of included studies and overall strength of evidence were assessed using standard methods. We used a 5-item checklist ("TIDieR-Lite") to map intervention components.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine publications were included, of which 31 dealt with service developments, six with use of data and two with other initiatives. Promising service development initiatives include liaison nurses, assessment clinics, secondment, joint protocols and a 'hub and spoke' model. Initiatives involving use of routine data appeared promising and unlikely to generate significant additional costs. However, the quality of the evidence was generally low, with a shortage of controlled and long-term studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Health and social care services wishing to improve awareness of child safeguarding issues may benefit from looking beyond high-quality training provision. Future research should focus on service-relevant outcomes and ensure the active involvement of young people and their families/carers.

Synthesis for health services and policy: case studies in the scoping of reviews

Background

For systematic reviews to be rigorous, deliverable and useful, they need a well-defined review question. Scoping for a review also requires the specification of clear inclusion criteria and planned synthesis methods. Guidance is lacking on how to develop these, especially in the context of undertaking rapid and responsive systematic reviews to inform health services and health policy.

Objective

This report describes and discusses the experiences of review scoping of three commissioned research centres that conducted evidence syntheses to inform health and social care organisation, delivery and policy in the UK, between 2017 and 2020.

Data sources

Sources included researcher recollection, project meeting minutes, e-mail correspondence with stakeholders and scoping searches, from allocation of a review topic through to review protocol agreement.

Methods

We produced eight descriptive case studies of selected reviews from the three teams. From case studies, we identified key issues that shape the processes of scoping and question formulation for evidence synthesis. The issues were then discussed and lessons drawn.

Findings

Across the eight diverse case studies, we identified 14 recurrent issues that were important in shaping the scoping processes and formulating a review’s questions. There were ‘consultative issues’ that related to securing input from review commissioners, policy customers, experts, patients and other stakeholders. These included managing and deciding priorities, reconciling different priorities/perspectives, achieving buy-in and engagement, educating the end-user about synthesis processes and products, and managing stakeholder expectations. There were ‘interface issues’ that related to the interaction between the review team and potential review users. These included identifying the niche/gap and optimising value, assuring and balancing rigour/reliability/relevance, and assuring the transferability/applicability of study evidence to specific policy/service user contexts. There were also ‘technical issues’ that were associated with the methods and conduct of the review. These were choosing the method(s) of synthesis, balancing fixed and fluid review questions/components/definitions, taking stock of what research already exists, mapping versus scoping versus reviewing, scoping/relevance as a continuous process and not just an initial stage, and calibrating general compared with specific and broad compared with deep coverage of topics.

Limitations

As a retrospective joint reflection by review teams on their experiences of scoping processes, this report is not based on prospectively collected research data. In addition, our evaluations were not externally validated by, for example, policy and service evidence users or patients and the public.

Conclusions

We have summarised our reflections on scoping from this programme of reviews as 14 common issues and 28 practical ‘lessons learned’. Effective scoping of rapid, responsive reviews extends beyond information exchange and technical procedures for specifying a ‘gap’ in the evidence. These considerations work alongside social processes, in particular the building of relationships and shared understanding between reviewers, research commissioners and potential review users that may be reflective of consultancy, negotiation and co-production models of research and information use.

Funding

This report has been based on work commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme as three university-based evidence synthesis centres to inform the organisation, delivery and commissioning of health and social care; at the University of Exeter (NIHR 16/47/22), the University of Sheffield (NIHR 16/47/17) and the University of York (NIHR 16/47/11). This report was commissioned by the NIHR HSDR programme as a review project (NIHR132708) within the NIHR HSDR programme. This project was funded by the NIHR HSDR programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Reducing loneliness among migrant and ethnic minority people: a participatory evidence synthesis

Background

To date, there has been little research into the causes of, and solutions to, loneliness among migrant and ethnic minority people.

Objectives

The objectives were to synthesise available evidence and produce new insights relating to initiatives that aim to address loneliness among these populations, plus the logic, functioning and effects of such initiatives.

Data sources

Electronic database searches (MEDLINE, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Social Science Citation Index via Web of Science – no date restrictions were applied), grey literature searches, and citation and reference searching were conducted. Data were generated via nine workshops with three consultation panels involving 34 public contributors, and one practitioner workshop involving 50 participants.

Review methods

Guided by ‘systems thinking’, a theory-driven synthesis was combined with an effectiveness review to integrate evidence on the nature and causes of loneliness, interventional types and programme theory, and intervention implementation and effectiveness.

Results

The theory review indicated that common conceptualisations of ‘loneliness’ can be usefully extended to recognise four proximate determinants when focusing on migrant and ethnic minority populations: positive social ties and interactions, negative social ties and interactions, self-worth, and appraisal of existing ties. A total of 170 interventions were included. A typology of eight interventions was developed. Detailed logic models were developed for three common types of intervention: befriending, shared-identity social support groups and intercultural encounters. The models for the first two types were generally well supported by empirical data; the third was more tentative. Evaluation of intervention processes and outcomes was limited by study content and quality. Evidence from 19 qualitative and six quantitative studies suggested that social support groups have a positive impact on dimensions of loneliness for participants. Evidence from nine qualitative and three quantitative studies suggested that befriending can have positive impacts on loneliness. However, inconsistent achievements of the befriending model meant that some initiatives were ineffective. Few studies on intercultural encounters reported relevant outcomes, although four provided some qualitative evidence and three provided quantitative evidence of improvement. Looking across intervention types, evidence suggests that initiatives targeting the proximate determinants – particularly boosting self-worth – are more effective than those that do not. No evidence was available on the long-term effects of any initiatives. UK intervention (n = 41) and non-intervention (n = 65) studies, together with consultation panel workshop data, contributed to a narrative synthesis of system processes. Interlocking factors operating at individual, family, community, organisational and wider societal levels increase risk of loneliness, and undermine access to, and the impact of, interventions. Racism operates in various ways throughout the system to increase risk of loneliness.

Limitations

There was a lack of high-quality quantitative studies, and there were no studies with longer-term follow-up. UK evidence was very limited. Studies addressing upstream determinants operating at the community and societal levels did not link through to individual outcome measures. Some elements of the search approach may mean that relevant literature was overlooked.

Conclusions

Theory regarding the causes of loneliness, and functioning of interventions, among migrant and ethnic minority populations was usefully developed. Evidence of positive impact on loneliness was strongest for shared-identity social support groups. Quantitative evidence was inadequate. The UK evidence base was extremely limited.

Future work

UK research in this area is desperately needed. Co-production of interventional approaches with migrant and ethnic minority people and evaluation of existing community-based initiatives are priorities.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017077378.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Access to primary and community health-care services for people 16 years and over with intellectual disabilities: a mapping and targeted systematic review

Background

In 2015, approximately 2.16% of adults were recorded as having intellectual disabilities. UK government policy is that adults with intellectual disabilities should access mainstream health services. However, people with intellectual disabilities experience challenges when accessing primary and community health services that can lead to inequalities and shorter life expectancy.

Objectives

To map and review the evidence on access to primary and community health-care services for adults with intellectual disabilities and their carers. To identify influencing factors for gaining access to primary and community health-care services. To determine which actions, interventions or models of service provision improve entry access to these services for people with intellectual disabilities and their carers. Finally, to identify the gaps in evidence and provide implications for health care and recommendations for research.

Data sources

MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) were searched from 2002 to 2018.

Review methods

The mapping review methodology included an extensive literature search, article selection and data extraction of relevant abstracts. Findings from the mapping review informed the scope of the targeted systematic review. Methodology for the targeted systematic review included an extensive literature search informed by the mapping review, article selection, data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis.

Results

The mapping review included 413 studies with data extraction completed on abstracts. The targeted systematic review synthesised the evidence from 80 studies reported in 82 publications. During the review process, the team identified three key points at which people with intellectual disabilities potentially interacted with primary and community health-care services: identifying needs, accessing services and interaction during a consultation. In addition, there were a number of papers about interventions or innovations to improve access. Evidence from the studies was synthesised within the four clusters. Influencing factors were identified: staff knowledge/skills, joint working with learning disability services, service delivery model, uptake, appointment making, carer/support role, relationship with staff, time, accessible information and communication. The influencing factors were cross-cutting through the literature, with certain factors having more importance in certain clusters.

Limitations

The main limitation was the weak evidence base. The studies generally had small samples, had study designs that were open to potential biases and measured only short-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Health checks were found to help identify health needs and improve the care of long-term conditions. Important factors for accessing health services for adults with intellectual disabilities were consistency of care and support, staff training, communication skills and time to communicate, and provision of accessible information. Health professionals need to ensure that there is joint working between different services, clear communication and accurate record-keeping. Future research questions centre on the need to develop and value creative study designs capable of addressing the complex issues identified in the findings of the review for this complex population.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.